Comparison of Uptake and Prices of Biosimilars in the US, Germany, and Switzerland

US Commercial Plans Increase Choice Of Biosimilar And Originator Products; Market Net Prices Decrease

Biosimilars drugs are almost identical copies of original biologic products. Early biosimilars had slower adoption and savings than expected; however, biosimilars launched in recent years have had more success. With several biosimilar launches planned in the next few years, it is important to understand how the state of the market might foretell significant market savings in the future. To do so, we explored how the introduction of biosimilars affected originator-biosimilar markets during the period 2017-22. We found that after biosimilar availability, payers increasingly allowed choice of preferred products. By 2022, 76 percent of commercial payers' coverage policies listed two or more products (originator or biosimilar) as first-line options. Biosimilar market shares exceeded those of originators a mean of three years after first biosimilar launch, and originator-biosimilar market average sales price declined substantially. Taken together, these findings provide evidence of a functioning competitive market.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bevacizumab Biosimilars Versus Originator Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Study Using Real-World Data

OBJECTIVES

MVASI (Amgen) and Zirabev (Pfizer) are 2 of the earliest bevacizumab biosimilars approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to confirm and quantify the real-world cost savings and cost-effectiveness of MVASI and Zirabev relative to originator bevacizumab for patients with mCRC.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, where originator and biosimilar bevacizumab are universally publicly funded. All mCRC patients who received originator bevacizumab between January 2008 and August 2019 or biosimilar bevacizumab between August 2019 and March 2021 were propensity score matched (1:4) to adjust for baseline differences. Total 1-year patient-level costs (CAD) and effects (life years [LY] and quality-adjusted LYs) were calculated from the public health payer's perspective. Primary outcomes included incremental net monetary benefit and incremental net health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analyses included a subgroup analysis by biosimilar type (MVASI/Zirabev) and a 2-year analysis.

RESULTS

The matched cohort included 747 biosimilar cases and 2945 comparators. Bevacizumab biosimilars were associated with an incremental cost of -$6379 (95%CI: -9417, -3537) (ie, cost saving) and incremental effect of 0.0 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.02) LY and -0.01 (95% CI: -0.03, 0) quality-adjusted LYs gained. Incremental net monetary benefit and INHB estimates were $6331 (95% CI: 6245, 6417) and 0.127 LY (95% CI: 0.125, 0.128), respectively, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/life year gained, with all estimates indicating the cost-effectiveness of biosimilar bevacizumab. Cost-effectiveness remained consistent across biosimilar brand subgroups and 2-year sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Bevacizumab biosimilars demonstrated real-world cost savings while providing similar survival benefit as originator bevacizumab, confirming the initial expectations of their implementation and supporting health system sustainability.

Drug Prices After Patent Expirations in High-Income Countries and Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

Importance

Understanding how patent expirations affect drug prices is crucial because price changes directly inform accurate cost-effectiveness assessments. This study investigates the association between patent expirations and drug prices in 8 high-income countries and evaluates how the changes affect cost-effectiveness assessments.

Objective

To analyze how the expiration of drug patents is associated with drug price changes and to assess the implications of these price changes for cost-effectiveness evaluations.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study performed an event study design using data from 8 high-income countries to assess the association between patent expiration and drug prices, and created a simulation model to understand the implications for cost-effectiveness analyses. The simulation cost-effectiveness model analyzed the implications of including or ignoring postpatent price dynamics.

Exposure

Drug patent expiration.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Change in drug prices and differences in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios when considering vs ignoring postpatent price dynamics.

Results

The sample comprised 505 drugs undergoing patent expiration in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, UK, and US. Price decreases were statistically significant over the 8 years after patent expiration, with the fastest price declines observed in the US: 32% (95% CI, 24%-39%) in year 1 after patent expiration and 82% (95% CI, 71%-89%) in the 8 years after patent expiration. Estimates for other nations ranged from a decrease of 64% in Australia to 18% in Switzerland in the 8 years after expiration. The cost-effectiveness simulation model indicated that not accounting for generic entry into the market may produce biased incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 40% to -40%, depending on the scenario.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study demonstrate that drug prices were reduced substantially after patent expirations in high-income countries. Therefore, incorporating information on patent status and pricing dynamics in cost-effectiveness assessment analyses is necessary for producing accurate economic evaluations of new drugs.

Real-World Noninferiority Assessment of Two Filgrastim Biosimilars in Patients Receiving Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Although multiple filgrastim biosimilars are now available in the United States, no studies comparing clinical outcomes between products have been reported. This analysis evaluated real-world outcomes of filgrastim-aafi and filgrastim-sndz in patients with select solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy to compare the two filgrastim biosimilars.

METHODS

This was an observational, noninferiority, cohort study of patients from three integrated health care systems who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and were prophylactically initiated on filgrastim-sndz between January and November 2021 or filgrastim-aafi between June and November 2022. Patients were followed from filgrastim biosimilar initiation until the start of their next chemotherapy cycle. The primary outcome of severe neutropenia was analyzed using a binary noninferiority test with a 5% upper margin. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of emergency department or hospital encounters due to febrile neutropenia and systemic antibiotic/antifungal medication use. If noninferiority was met, adjusted logistic regression modeling was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 2,730 patients who initiated filgrastim-aafi (n = 880) or filgrastim-sndz (n = 1,850) during the study period were included. The overall mean age was 55 years, 87.4% were female, 42.3% were White, and 76.6% had breast cancer. Severe neutropenia occurred in 1.8% and 1.7% of patients initiated on filgrastim-aafi and filgrastim-sndz, respectively (P < .01 for noninferiority). The adjusted odds ratio for severe neutropenia with filgrastim-aafi compared with filgrastim-sndz was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.68; P = .76). Noninferiority was met for all secondary outcomes (P < .01), and there were no adjusted statistically significant differences between the groups (all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with select solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, severe neutropenia outcomes were comparable between filgrastim-aafi and filgrastim-sndz biosimilars. Findings from this study may support utilization of different filgrastim biosimilars in clinical practice.

Anti-TNFα in inflammatory bowel disease: from originators to biosimilars

The introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) biologics significantly innovated inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment and increased medical costs. The recent expiration of patents of some anti-TNFα biologics (such as infliximab and adalimumab) facilitated the development of biosimilars. Comparable pharmacokinetic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles between anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars were demonstrated in different studies. Anti-TNFα biosimilars hold promise for reducing the high cost of biologics and increasing patient access to biologics. In this review, we outline the current data on the use of anti-TNFα originators and biosimilars in patients with IBD, with a focus on the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars. The potential benefits, challenges, and future directions of anti-TNFα biosimilars are also discussed in the review.

Use of Track One Prioritized Examination for Pharmaceutical Patents

This study examines the use of the Track One prioritized patent examination program by pharmaceutical manufacturers from 2011 to 2022.

Obstacles to Biosimilar Acceptance and Uptake in Oncology: A Review

Importance

Biosimilar drugs provide cost-effective yet clinically indistinguishable replications of target drugs. During initial development, this class of biologic medicines was expected to revolutionize pharmaceutical markets; however, following US Food and Drug Administration approval of the first biosimilar drug in 2015, the commercialization of biosimilars has been limited. The lack of biosimilar use may be especially salient in oncology, given that biosimilar distribution in this particularly high-cost area of medicine would bring savings on the order of many billions of dollars.

Observations

While researchers have focused on salient economic barriers to biosimilar uptake in the US, the present review provides insight regarding noneconomic barriers. This review discusses psychological, attitudinal, and educational factors among both health care professionals and payers in the US that may play a role in slowing biosimilar uptake. More specifically, these factors include a lack of health care professional education, concerns of safety and efficacy, and overly complex product naming systems.

Conclusions and Relevance

The pathway to biosimilar use has been obstructed by economic elements as well as attitudinal and psychological factors. For biosimilar drugs to achieve their potential in decreasing treatment costs and thus increasing patient access, it will be essential for both economic and noneconomic factors to be identified and systematically addressed.

Biosimilar underutilization alone does not foretell a broken biologics market

Biosimilars offer the potential for cost savings and expanded access to biologic products; however, there are concerns regarding the rate of biosimilar uptake. We assessed the relationship between biosimilar and originator pricing, coverage, and market share by describing four case studies that fall into two categories: (1) sole preferred coverage strategy (ie, aim is to have originator product preferred; biosimilar(s) non-preferred), defined as steep average sales price (ASP) reductions for originator products (decline in net prices by at least 50% following the introduction of biosimilar competition by 2022) and (2) non-sole preferred coverage strategy (ie, aim is to have originator product preferred alongside biosimilar products), defined as moderate ASP reductions for originator products with (net prices did not decline by at least 50% of its pre-biosimilar competition value). We found that originators with sole preferred coverage strategies maintained formulary preference and market share relative to originators with non-sole preferred coverage strategies. Regardless of strategy, the market-weighted ASP for all four product families (originator and biosimilars) declined significantly in the years following the introduction of biosimilars, suggesting that biosimilar uptake alone may not be a complete measure of whether the biosimilar market is facilitating competition and lowering prices.

Short and long-term economic implications of biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Biosimilars are gaining popularity due to their ability to offer comparable therapeutic benefits at potentially lower costs.

AREAS COVERED

This article analyses studies that compare the cost savings of biosimilars with biologics. It also explores market competition dynamics and the impact of policies in countries. The focus is on the advantages of biosimilars in oncology and rheumatological treatments while considering broader economic implications for the pharmaceutical industry such as market displacement, pricing strategies and their influence on innovation and healthcare sustainability.

EXPERT OPINION

The introduction of biosimilars marks a shift in healthcare economics by offering cost reductions and long-term potential for economic balance. However, I also recognize challenges related to research methodologies and regulatory inconsistencies across countries. To fully capitalize on their potential, future research and development in the field of biosimilars must emphasize harmonized approaches and comprehensive studies that ensure both cost containment in healthcare and wider access, to high quality treatments.

Reduction of biologic pricing following biosimilar introduction: Analysis across 57 countries and regions, 2012-19

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of the entry of biosimilars on the pricing of eight biologic products in 57 countries and regions.

METHODS

We utilized an interrupted time series design and IQVIA MIDAS® data to analyze the annual sales data of eight biologic products (adalimumab, bevacizumab, epoetin, etanercept, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and trastuzumab) across 57 countries and regions from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. We examined the immediate and long-term changes in biologics ex-manufacturer pricing following the entry of biosimilars to the market.

RESULTS

Following the entry of biosimilars, the average price per dose of biologic product was immediately reduced by $438 for trastuzumab, $112 for infliximab, and $110 for bevacizumab. The persistent effect of biosimilars' market entry led to further reductions in price per dose every year: by $49 for adalimumab, $290 for filgrastim, $21 for infliximab, and $189 for trastuzumab. Similarly, we analyzed the impact of biosimilars on four biologics' prices in the US, where the prices of three biologics significantly decreased every year, with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and infliximab decreasing by $955, $753, and $104, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of biosimilars has significantly reduced the prices of biologics both globally and in the US. These findings not only demonstrate the economic benefits of increasing biosimilar utilization, but also emphasize the importance of biosimilars in controlling healthcare costs. Policies should aim to expand the availability of biosimilars to counteract the exponential growth of medical spending caused by the use of biologics.

Paucity of intellectual property rights information in the US biologics system a decade after passage of the Biosimilars Act

In this Policy Forum piece, Robin Feldman discusses how current legislation contributes to informational deficits around drug patents for biologic drugs in the United States.

Comparative price analysis of biological medicines: disparities generated by different pricing policies

Introduction: Biological medicines have been assuming an important role among the therapeutic options for several diseases, however, due to their complex production process, the products obtained from this technology have a high added value and do not reach the purchasing power of most patients, which overwhelms the budget of health systems. With the development of biosimilars, which have reduced production costs, it is expected that access to biological medicines will become broader. However, in Brazil, the criteria for determining the price of biosimilars, unlike the generic policy in the country, do not foresee a price reduction due to the reduction of development costs. Objective: To understand the impact of the current model of economic regulation on the availability and access of these products in the country, based on a comparative analysis in selected countries, and identify trends that can help to expand the availability and access to biological medicines. Method: Quantitative and qualitative study, to identify the variation between the entry prices of biological medicines in Brazil and in selected countries, as well as the differences in the economic regulation policies established in these countries. Results: The results demonstrate that the current pricing model in Brazil has generated distortions in the prices of biosimilars in the market, which, consequently, makes it difficult for the population to access this category of products, in addition to allowing unsustainable market practices for the systems of public and private health in Brazil. It was also found that most of the analyzed countries, unlike Brazil, seek to harmonize the prices of different brands of the same molecule marketed in the country and with the international market, in addition to establishing incentive policies for indication and replacement by biosimilars, which expands the participation of biosimilars in the market significantly. Conclusion: Based on the data presented, it is concluded that it is essential to build a broader political and regulatory debate on the market for biologicals and biosimilars in the country to guarantee the access of the Brazilian population to more cost-effective technologies, generate a more competitive market and consequently contribute to the financial sustainability of health systems.

Knowledge and attitudes of German and Swiss community pharmacists towards biologicals and biosimilars - a prospective survey before and after the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Knowledge, attitudes and substitution laws of biosimilars are not consistent across countries. Biosimilar acceptance among patients and healthcare professionals may be suffering from gaps in knowledge and understanding about biosimilars and their regulatory approval process. Pharmacists' roles and responsibilities changed considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, they might have gained new skills and self-confidence in counseling and substitution of biosimilars.

AIMS

To examine and compare the knowledge, perceptions and information needs of German and Swiss pharmacists regarding original biologicals and biosimilars in 2020 and 2022.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey among Swiss and German community pharmacies in February 2020 (before) and August 2022 (after the COVID-19 pandemic). Descriptive statistics were calculated and the Chi-Square test was used for comparisons among categorical variables.

RESULTS

A total of 764 pharmacists took part in the survey (390 in 2020 and 374 in 2022) with comparable demographics. The frequency of dispensing biologicals remained similar between German and Swiss pharmacists in 2020 and 2022, but the Swiss dispensation of biosimilars increased significantly in 2022 compared to 2020. Concerning the understanding of the term biosimilars, knowledge remained moderate in both countries in both years. Participants were equally familiar with the term and most felt sufficiently informed. In both countries, substitution with a biosimilar showed the least confidence of all attitudes. A third of the participants indicated correct substitution rules in their country. In both years, around 85% of the participants were highly interested in additional training on this topic.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The results indicate that similarities and differences between Germany and Switzerland regarding knowledge and attitudes towards biologicals and biosimilars remained unchanged before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. An influence of the pandemic is unlikely. There is still a clear lack of knowledge among community pharmacists on biosimilars, especially regarding the substitution rules. Due to a rising market with many benefits but also big challenges to overcome, the topic of biosimilars should receive more attention in the future. This requires additional training for pharmacists.

Biosimilars engage in low levels of direct-to-physician marketing relative to reference biologics

Biosimilars have the potential to greatly reduce US spending on biologic drugs, but uptake of these competitor products varies. We used Open Payments data from 2014 to 2022 to proxy for direct-to-physician marketing and compared levels of activity between biologic and biosimilar drug manufacturers. Our analysis focused on 6 reference biologics that recently faced competition in the years immediately before and after the launch of the first biosimilar. We used Medicare Part B dosage units to measure market penetration of biosimilars and its relationship with biosimilar marketing activity. Last, we conducted a sensitivity test, comparing payments for primarily office- or hospital-based physicians, using affiliations constructed from Medicare Carrier claims. Reference biologic manufacturers greatly reduced the amount of direct-to-physician marketing in the post-launch period. Biosimilar manufacturers generally engaged in low levels of activity relative to the historic performance of reference biologics. These trends were consistent across office- and hospital-based physicians. The intensity of biosimilars' direct-to-physician marketing also had no apparent relationship with achieved market penetration. Our findings demonstrate that persistently high market shares of reference biologics cannot be explained by ongoing direct-to-physician marketing activities. At the same time, while such activities could educate physicians or induce switching, biosimilar entrants engaged in little direct-to-physician marketing.

Effectiveness of biosimilar adoption within a UK tertiary hospital: 6-year follow-up

Health systems encourage switching from originators to biosimilars as biosimilars are more cost-effective. The speed and completeness of biosimilar adoption is a measure of efficiency. We describe the approach to biosimilar adoption at a single hospital Trust and compare its efficiency against the English average. We additionally follow up patients who reverted to a previously used biologic, having switched to a biosimilar, to establish whether they benefitted from re-establishing prior treatment. The approach we describe resulted in a faster and more complete switch to biosimilars, which saved an additional £380 000 on drug costs in 2021/2022. Of patients who reverted to their original biologic, 87% improved short-term, and a time on treatment analysis showed the benefit was retained long term. Our approach to biosimilar adoption outperformed the English average and permits patients to revert to their original biosimilar post-switch if appropriate.

Does the first generic exclusivity system provide an economic incentive for early generic entrance under the patent linkage system?

Introduction

A period of exclusivity for the first generics, as part of the patent linkage system, was established in South Korea to provide an economic incentive for early generic entry. This study describes the dynamics of generic penetration and assesses the first mover market share advantages under the patent linkage system.

Methods

Pairs of originators and their corresponding generics granted the first generic exclusivity from 2015 to 2020 were identified. We categorized generics into first movers and latecomers, described the penetration curves of generics, and estimated the saturated market share of generics, first movers, and latecomers. Volume-based monthly prescriptions were used to describe the generics' penetration curves. A logistic growth model was adopted to estimate the saturated market shares of generics.

Results

We identified 28 pairs of originators and generics, presented penetration curves, and estimated generics market shares. The saturated market share of generics was 30%, and the time to saturation was approximately 33 months. The shapes of penetration varied by nationality, route, and number of generics. The existence of latecomers was associated with the decreased penetration speed over time and decreased market share of generics. However, the first mover market share advantages or latecomers' disadvantages were consistently observed.

Conclusion

The generic uptake in South Korea is delayed, limited, and context-dependent. However, first generics' market share advantage suggests that a period of exclusivity, as part of the patent linkage system, could provide an economic incentive for early generic entrance.

Market Diffusion of Biosimilars in Off-Patent Biologic Drug Markets across Europe

Biologics are among the most expensive pharmaceuticals but have begun to lose their exclusivity rights over the past 15 years, offering the possibility for biosimilar competition. Therefore, we examine the market diffusion of biosimilars across Europe. Using revenues and sales data from IQVIA, we identified 12 biologic substances facing first biosimilar competition between 2014 and 2020 in 25 European countries. We investigated biosimilar market share depending on product and market characteristics with beta regression. Moreover, we compared market diffusion across countries using multilevel modelling. The average market share of biosimilars at first biosimilar entry was about seven percent in the retail and hospital market and grew to 34.69% and 38.29% after 16 quarters, respectively. Quarters since first biosimilar entry had a positive but decreasing effect on biosimilar market share (p<.001 for both markets). Quarterly growth ranged from 0.006 (Netherlands) to 0.026 (Slovakia) in the retail market and from 0.007 (Hungary) to 0.040 (United Kingdom) in the hospital market. The diffusion increased over time across all European markets, although at different rates. Biosimilar market share was higher in the hospital market. Compared to generics, diffusion of biosimilars is much slower. If policymakers desire to increase biosimilar diffusion, they should aim at policies that increase competition and use countries with the highest diffusion rates as benchmarks.